Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General for the consultation, which was very effective and inclusive. The Law Officers often give the Government advice about the interpretation of the law or the meaning of legislative proposals that is easy to disclose as a matter of course. However, on other occasions Ministers present policy propositions to Parliament that they argue are justified because advice has been taken from the Law Officers. Does the Solicitor-General accept that there is now an overwhelmingly strong case that such advice should be published automatically? The most obvious recent, public and famous example of that is the advice that the Government received about the legality of the invasion of Iraq.

Jo Swinson: Some women are put off becoming MPs because they think that the House has a rather sexist, male-dominated culture, and that the job is all about making speeches and engaging in aggressive debate, although that is actually a small part of the job. Does the Minister agree that, although all parties must continue their own efforts to get more women elected, there is also a need for a cross-party initiative to communicate better that elected politics can be incredibly enjoyable and rewarding and to change some of those negative perceptions?

Sharon Hodgson: What recent discussions she has had with the Solicitor-General on the Government's consultation, "Convicting Rapists and Protecting Women".

Barbara Follett: As the mother of five, I understand the problems faced by parents during holidays; that was the moment when my heart sank. We have asked local authorities to assess that they have sufficient child care for working parents. That, I hope, will help to address part of the problem.

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Lady mentioned the debate on the armed forces on Thursday 10 January, and the topical debate on the same day. I would say two things in response. First, she supported the introduction of topical debates, as did the whole House. I believe that they are going to be very important. Secondly, we have five days' debate on defence as well as Defence oral questions and other statements that are made from time to time. Defence and our armed services are of importance at all times to Members on both sides of the House, and we ensure that they are debated regularly and that they remain at the forefront of the concerns of the House.
	On the housing market, the right hon. Lady will know that it is important for that market that we have low inflation, and that people can pay their mortgages because they are able to remain in work and because interest rates are low. She will also know that it is important for that market that there is affordable housing, and that means that there should be a greater supply of housing. If she is as concerned as she says she is, I hope that the Opposition will support our Housing and Regeneration Bill, which will make the biggest possible contribution to the housing market.
	The right hon. Lady asked a number of questions about the Prime Minister and Iraq. Perhaps she will remember that, only yesterday at Prime Minister's questions, the Prime Minister answered questions about Iraq, as he does nearly every Wednesday at this Dispatch Box. Indeed, he also made a statement on Afghanistan.
	On pensions, the right hon. Lady will know that we have just concluded deliberation in this House on one Pensions Bill, and that our legislative programme contains another pensions Bill. She raised the question of the police pay award, and I want to pay tribute to the police for their important and courageous work. She will know that it is Government policy to ensure that we deal with police pay within the overall context of the Government's public sector pay policy.
	The right hon. Lady raised a range of issues about Europe. She will know that, because the Prime Minister believes in the importance of the House, he was answering questions before the Liaison Committee this morning. He cannot be in two places in once, so he has answered the Committee's questions and he is now travelling to sign the treaty. She then raised a whole load of other spurious questions about Europe—I know that this is the festive season, but this is supposed to be business questions, not panto.

Gordon Prentice: It is perfectly clear that the Government are not going to move on the vexed question of police pay. I am very sympathetic to the position of the police, because the matter has been to arbitration. How would my Friend describe the meaning of arbitration in this context?

Simon Hughes: Some colleagues, like the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), cannot wait! Many of us would like to know when that process is going to begin, as it will require a considerable time commitment.
	As we approach Christmas, may we have an opportunity before the break to discuss when the Farepak victims—I know we had a written statement about it yesterday—are likely to receive any money that, following the company's collapse, they may get? After the Ministry of Justice report showing that conciliation is not working, may we have a debate on conflict resolution in families? Finally, may we have a debate on the important issue of conflict resolution policy in government, especially given that it looks like we may have to be further engaged around the world in Kosovo and elsewhere, so the more we can do to prevent and resolve conflicts rather than fight over them, the better. Many of us would view that as not just seasonally appropriate, but the best option all year round.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the number of policy reviews. If the Government are concerned that policy needs to be changed, surely the whole House would agree that they should reflect openly, consult, gather evidence, announce what they are going to do and only then put proposals before the House. Hon. Members would have much more to complain about if we brought proposals for change before the House without announcing or undertaking any review. I know that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that we are following what has been described as the Bercow report and that we are now moving to the next stage of reviewing special educational needs, which is both welcome and important. I think that the hon. Gentleman would also welcome how we are reviewing the way in which child mental health services work with schools. I believe that there is nothing wrong with reviews and that it is right for us to announce the results of them to the House.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the electoral systems review and I agree with him that the House expected to hear the results shortly. A great deal of change has resulted from the introduction of different systems in Scotland, Wales and England for European elections, local elections, mayoral elections and so forth. All of that needs to be analysed and the results understood before they can be reported back to the House. I will convey the hon. Gentleman's points to the Secretary of State for Justice.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about debates on the Bill to implement the European treaty. I can tell him and the House that as we become fully engaged with the European debates, we will find them plentiful and likely to take quite a long time. I believe that it is very important that as we scrutinise effectively the structural changes brought about by the treaty, we must not lose sight of what is most important to people in the country. They are less concerned about the minutiae of the structures and more concerned about how being a member of Europe contributes to our economy, to our work on climate change internationally and to how we tackle human trafficking. I hope that the House will sometimes be able to focus not just on the structures of Europe, but on what being in Europe means to people in this country.
	The hon. Gentleman asked for debate and discussion on the important matter of Farepak. One of the reasons why I chose the subject for this afternoon's topical debate was precisely in order to allow Farepak to be raised. There are concerns that people with the least money are most at risk when it comes to savings; those with the least money spend most when they are trying to save. That is why I chose the subject of the availability of financial services for low income families for this afternoon's topical debate. Farepak is not in the title, so I accept that it was not good enough as a signal to the hon. Gentleman, but I expect it to be discussed.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about conflict resolution. He will know that the Foreign Secretary has made a number of statements about conflict resolution—for example, on the Government's work in Kosovo and other parts of the world. If any further information or proposals should be brought before the House, I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will do exactly that.

Harriet Harman: It is indeed important, for the reasons that my hon. Friend has given. The number of elderly people is growing. We need to make absolutely sure that they have the care and support that they need, and that families caring for them have the backing that they require as well. As my hon. Friend Gentleman knows, there will be many debates in the House on the Health and Social Care Bill. He will also know of the review dealing with the existing support for carers, including those caring for older people. However, we remain concerned not only about residential care of the elderly but about domiciliary services, and I will raise my hon. Friend's points with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Margaret Moran: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is aware of reports in the media today that a convicted paedophile who viewed online child pornography has effectively had his sentence reduced from life to one year, although he had been viewing level 5 pornography, which involves such material as babies and bestiality. He is also the founder of an organisation that lobbies for sex with under-age children. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that viewing online child abuse is every bit as serious as production and distribution, and will she please make time, as a matter of urgency, for a debate in the House on sentencing for this very serious crime?

Andrew Murrison: In the abbreviated debate on armed forces personnel, will the right hon. and learned Lady ensure that her part-time colleague comes to the House prepared to talk about the military covenant in general and to address specifically the raw deal that service children get from a funding formula that completely fails to recognise the cost drivers that apply to schools with a high proportion of service children. I tried to raise this matter during yesterday's debate, but unfortunately the Minister for the Armed Forces largely ignored my remarks.

Henry Bellingham: May we have a debate on prisons and offender data? Is the Leader of the House aware that Roger Hill, the director of the probation service within the National Offender Management Service, has said that the new computer system—CNOMIS—will be suspended and scaled down for use only in prisons? On the other hand, the Ministers of State at the Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) and the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) have said that that is not the case. Who is correct?

Harriet Harman: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport, has recently been to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He will know that since we came into government there have been more passengers and more freight on trains, better rolling stock and improved time-keeping. If he has any further concerns, I suggest that he raises them in a debate in Westminster Hall.

Jacqui Smith: The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), tells me that work is under way to bring the regulation of private bailiffs within the purview of the SIA. If the hon. Gentleman is genuinely interested, he might like to have a conversation with my hon. Friend.

Mark Hoban: Families in Britain face a real challenge today. The global credit squeeze does not just affect international banks and businesses; it ripples its way through to families across the county. Increases in the rates that banks lend to each other will push up the cost of mortgages. Lenders are turning down applications for credit cards and are reviewing credit limits. People who would have been granted credit a few months ago will now face rejection. More people will be turning to alternative lenders, as mainstream lenders turn them away. The cost will be higher charges, if they can borrow at all. As this week's Save the Children report highlighted, the annual percentage rate on home credit can be as high as 183 per cent.
	Many low-income families have an income that is too low to secure low-cost credit, or too volatile to service loans regularly—characteristics that often make them unattractive to mainstream lenders who provide better support, although the home credit market can deal with them. Such families tend to turn to credit through need, rather than because they want to. The Save the Children report suggested that 57 per cent. of families on low income had no savings at all. That rose to 72 per cent. for lone parents.
	Clearly, we need to face the challenge of making financial services products available to people on low incomes. That challenge is a social responsibility. It is partly the responsibility of Government, and partly the responsibility of business, the voluntary sector and individuals.

Mark Hoban: Apparently they do not. The small sum that I have with Portsmouth Savers Credit Union is clearly not earning any interest.  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry) who is my neighbour, believes that her credit union, which I believe is the same as mine, pays interest.
	There is a wider point that I want to make about sustainability—the products that credit unions can offer. One of the issues that is being consulted on, or should be, is the ability of organisations to make deposits with credit unions. I imagine that many church groups, voluntary groups and social enterprises might wish to make deposits with credit unions to help them grow, develop and lend money to other people.

Colin Breed: I should first acknowledge that progress has been made on this issue in the past few months. A spotlight has been put on it by all sorts of organisations, not least the all-party group on debt and personal finance chaired by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), which has raised several important matters. Moreover, the Government have responded well in several areas. Despite the progress being made, however, we must keep the pressure on because there are so many more things still to do.
	Bank accounts are an absolute necessity nowadays, but in some banks the identity requirements even for opening an account are rather restrictive and difficult to fulfil. For instance, it is not helpful to require a utility bill from someone who does not own or rent the place that they are living in. There are also restrictive criteria for free bank accounts and the charging system. Some people simply lack the confidence to go and engage with a bank in the first place; they think that they are far too poor to have a bank account and are not encouraged to do so. A basic bank account is essential to managing one's affairs, and not have access to one is a major problem. We need to keep the pressure on so that anyone who needs or wants one can get it easily enough; otherwise they will turn to other methods, particularly to moneylenders and other such sources.
	Credit unions have considerably increased in number. A great deal of work is going on, and as we know, there is to be a report. I hope that that will enable credit unions to expand their facilities and do other things such as taking deposits and giving interest, so that they can become community banks; I have been calling for that for some time. Once they can call themselves community banks they will be able to get the market profile that they need, and people will be able to go to them with much more understanding of what they can do to help. I hope that we can get to that stage, because community banks in other countries have really shown the way.

Colin Breed: The hon. Gentleman is right. Had the Post Office not sold Girobank, I suppose that that would be a supreme example of the way in which a community bank might operate. While we are on that subject, I applaud what has been said about Christmas clubs. I hope that that idea will be well promoted, and that people will use their post office as much as they can, if only to preserve it for as long as possible. Of course, we have already spoken about the Post Office card account.
	Let me say a few words about ATMs. Many months ago, I opened the sixth free-to-use ATM. I am grateful for that facility, but we must not forget that ATMs are extremely helpful to the banks, which originally put them in so that they did not have to have more premises, counters and staff. That saved them huge amounts of money, and the idea that they should then charge for them was, to me, anathema. Although we are grateful that there will be free ATMs, I believe that all ATMs should be free, because the banks have used them in order to reduce their costs significantly—although they would probably argue against that.
	Let me briefly raise a few other issues, the first of which is trading standards departments. Significant numbers of my constituents who are vulnerable in all sorts of ways have had matters referred to trading standards departments, but they are inundated with work and do not have sufficient resources. Sometimes they can take up cases very appropriately, and if they had the resources, they could do that more often. I hope that the Government will consider how trading standards officers and departments can be more supportive of vulnerable low-income families when they are targeted by unscrupulous people.
	Insurance, too, is becoming an important issue. We found out during the recent flooding the sheer number of people who do not have access to contents insurance. There are opportunities for selling such products through credit unions—which will in future, I hope, be called community banks—but there are also opportunities for involving councils. There is a good scheme in Scotland that a council has negotiated with an insurance company, whereby tenants pay a small amount extra on their rent and that goes towards their premium, giving them some basic contents cover. As for car insurance, even third-party insurance is extremely expensive for some people. There is a great deal of work to do on insurance.
	The issues involved in Farepak and small savings schemes have been well aired. We need to protect alternative schemes such as that provided by post offices and those being considered by others. This is a big field in which, again, credit unions can assist. We need to encourage people to have a reasonable cushion against the kinds of things that they are going to experience.
	On mortgage and secured loan arrears—the excellent Citizens Advice report has been mentioned—banks and other lenders need to treat their borrowers as fairly as they can, and I think that most of them do. Unfortunately, however, sometimes missing one payment can trigger all sorts of problems. Court action is a last resort, but it often seems to be reached rather quickly. Mortgage protection insurance has declined, partly because it got a bad press. That is terribly unfortunate, because I suspect that in the not-too-distant future many people will wish that they had it.
	In the case of remortgaging, people are encouraged to take out second mortgages that add to their existing one, and eventually find themselves in an even bigger mess than they were originally. Cooling-off periods are provided for many other products, and that should be offered to anybody remortgaging, as well as independent advice before they sign up. Far too many people are being pressured into it on the doorstep, in the bank branch or in some other way, because they think that there is no other solution, whereas if they could stand back and be given advice on reorganising their finances instead of getting themselves into even deeper trouble, we might be able to help them far more.

Alan Whitehead: I thank my hon. Friend for that point, which underlines how this debate turns on what can be very small amounts of money in some people's eyes, but which mean life or death to other people. If someone has no bank account they have no credit rating, and they may well have to live in a cash economy. A surprisingly large proportion of the total population—certainly a large proportion of people with low incomes—simply have no assets to gain credit in the first place. Any upset in that person's cash economy, which would often seem insignificant to those inside the credit economy, can put them in severe difficulty.
	Indeed, a National Housing Federation publication of this summer, "Credit where credit's due", highlighted, among other things, exactly what that cash economy means, despite great efforts to ensure that the unbanked have at least basic bank accounts, and the progress made on that in recent years. About 24 per cent. of housing association tenants still have no bank account. More than 3 million people, of whom at least 70 per cent. are housed by social landlords, continue to borrow at punitive rates of interest—at least 164 per cent. APR. As the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) mentioned, 75 per cent. of housing association tenants have no homes contents insurance at all.
	People in such a position are far more likely to be uninsured than those in households with credit access, but they are twice as likely to be burgled. They are much more likely to be using more expensive prepayment meters, and the cost, and the potential for catastrophe, is far greater than for those inside the credit economy. They are much more likely to resort to doorstep lenders, whom we have discussed today, for credit. Those lenders are, to a considerable extent, the source of the high rates of interest that the credit-excluded pay. Most of the loans to which many people resort are essentially to repair a short-term breach, and deal with short-term financial catastrophe. The requirement for such loans will perhaps have occurred because of a very short-term crisis, so most of them are for a very short term—perhaps 25 or 26 weeks at most.
	However, the 164 per cent. APR figure I mentioned is not the ceiling figure. That is the figure charged by the most reputable of doorstep lenders. In fact, roughly 177 per cent. APR is charged by Provident Financial, which is the doorstep lender with something like 60 per cent. of the doorstep lending market. Many borrowers borrow at much higher rates than that—in some instances, up to 800 per cent—and that is where the spiral of indebtedness, almost akin to the days of indentured workers, cuts in. The additional cost of servicing the debt adds to the debt itself in a wholly unmanageable way, and a spiral of debt then ensues. It is quite impossible for people in such circumstances to extricate themselves from that spiral.
	Clearly, we need to put a cap on the interest rates that doorstep lenders charge. I do not think that such a cap would undermine the availability of doorstep lending—and it is true that such lending often plays a substantial and positive role for low-income families. However, a cap based on the total cost of the loan over the known period—bearing in mind that such loans are usually for short terms—including all repayments, would not put reputable companies such as Provident Financial out of business, but would certainly attack firms that charge much higher rates of interest.
	I strongly applaud the action on loan sharks who charge very high rates of interest. It is proving very positive in dealing with them. Among other things, a team is coming to my city of Southampton, and I think that it will have a very substantial effect on that area of the market. I applaud the initiatives on financial inclusion, the moves to support cashpoints in low-income areas, and basic bank accounts, and the action on loan sharks throughout the country. We need to continue such initiatives, on the basis of looking positively at how organisations that can make a difference to the availability of credit to low-income families can work best. We have already heard about the strong role that credit unions can and should play in that move forward.
	I welcome the £42 million from the growth fund of the Department for Work and Pensions, which has mainly been applied for loans through credit unions. Those loans are important, but it will also be important to change the way in which credit unions work, so that they are a better vehicle for saving and for loans. I have already mentioned in an intervention that credit unions are hampered in structuring savings for people on low incomes simply because they cannot give interest on the savings that people bank with them. They can give a dividend over a period, but that is not the same as interest on savings.
	Perhaps in addition to credit unions being rebadged as community banks, being able to provide interest on savings could make an important difference to how they work. A loan from a credit union of £250 over 26 weeks, for example, repayable at just over £10 a week, would end up about £135 cheaper than the same loan given out by even a reputable doorstep lender. The difference that credit unions can make in such circumstances is enormous, but they must have corporate arrangements that allow them to move forward as we take further action against financial exclusion.
	It is right that corporate bodies should be permitted to become members of credit unions, and they should be able to invest in them. It is right that the common bond at the heart of credit unions should be redefined on a more flexible basis. Legislation should be introduced to achieve that. I appreciate the consultation that went out in June this year, and I hope at least that a draft Bill to make such changes to credit unions will be introduced early on, and that in the next legislative cycle, legislation will be introduced to enable them to play the role that I believe they can play strongly throughout the country in assisting financial inclusion.
	I would also like to commend the role that housing associations and social landlords are beginning to play to provide a framework, perhaps alongside credit unions, to ensure that secure community saving and lending can be undertaken. Housing associations and social landlords can provide that framework, perhaps not as the lender or deposit agents themselves, but by, for example, supplying the circumstances in which community banks can flourish, and by providing a framework for insuring home contents and other activities undertaken by tenants.
	There is a raft of possibilities that, if taken in the context of changes to credit unions and the activity that the Government have undertaken on financial inclusion, could begin to change the landscape enormously for those who remain outside the credit economy. I commend what the Government have done so far, but I believe that there are further steps that can be taken, and I hope that they will be considered soon.

Brooks Newmark: I congratulate the Leader of the House on choosing a subject for today's topical debate that is both topical and desperately in need of a full debate.
	Although I welcome many aspects of the action plan, it underestimates one element of financial inclusion. When we use the term "financial inclusion", it is tempting to focus on those who cannot access mainstream banking and insurance products, but I would prefer a definition that placed equal weight on financial education. It is a little lazy to say that access to mainstream products is the be-all and end-all of financial inclusion. If people do not understand the products to which they have access, they cannot meaningfully be said to be "included". For me, financial inclusion is achieved only with understanding. Only when people's personal finances are flexible, comprehensible and, above all, sustainable, can they be said to be financially included. The Government's favourite fiction, especially now that times are tough, is to pretend that life began in 1997 with a new red dawn—and I do not mean the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo). However, before that date, the Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury was proclaiming his prophetic vision to the country:
	"We will not build the new Jerusalem on a mountain of debt"
	he said in 1996. Yet, 11 years later, a mountain of debt is precisely what we have.
	I see the Economic Secretary smiling. She is well aware of my fondness for the vexed question of off-balance sheet public sector debt; at least it vexes her when I raise it with such persistence. However, in the realm of very large numbers that is evoked by the spectre of off-balance sheet liabilities, an even larger number lurks: that for unsecured consumer debt. Unsecured consumer credit is the ticking time bomb that is genuinely worthy of a topical debate. The explosion—and now the impending implosion—of unsecured consumer credit threatens some pretty serious subsidence to the economy, if not to the new Jerusalem itself.
	The Government's proposals place, to my mind, more emphasis on access to services than on access to advice, and they must be complementary. The Government's first financial inclusion strategy correctly identified the three key pillars of access: to banking, affordable credit and free face-to-face financial advice. However, the provision of services or credit to those people who have no experience of them is surely tempting fate.
	As the Government implement their welfare strategy of "individualised budgets" for care and payment of benefits directly to bank accounts, the most vulnerable people in our society will continue to pay the price of exclusion and of change. One example of that is well known to all hon. Members and has already been mentioned today, but I will repeat it. The loss of the Post Office card account without a viable replacement has hit many of our constituents hard and exacerbated financial exclusion.
	Today is a sad day for many of my constituents in Braintree, as Post Office Ltd has confirmed the impending closure of three branches in White Notley, Rocking Church street and Panfield lane. The closures have gone ahead despite all the hard work of parish and district councillors and the residents who relied on post office services to save the branches. So we might be forgiven for thinking that, in some areas, despite the Government's plans for investment in financial inclusion, things on the ground are slipping backwards.
	When I was a member of the Treasury Committee last year, it published a series of reports on the subject, which recognised that promoting financial inclusion is crucial to the fight against poverty. While social exclusion reaches far beyond financial exclusion, it is clear that the latter helps entrench the former. That is not an especially new idea, and, to give credit where it is due, the issue has been on the Government's agenda since 2004. However, the timing of the current action plan's publication in December 2007 is significant. Only now, after the credit crunch has started to bite, do the Government genuinely emphasise the importance of the issue. Suddenly, it is a "topical issue" and I hope that we are not too late. For many hard-working families who have got themselves into unsustainable levels of debt, or who have been forced to use non-mainstream sources of credit, the new year may not be a happy one.
	Although I wanted to focus on three issues, I appreciate that time is short, so I shall focus on only one: the cost of credit. The Competition Commission's investigation into the cost of home credit found that customers were being overcharged by some £100 million a year. The statistics on home credit companies and doorstep lenders can be truly frightening. Annual percentage rates can range from 140 per cent. to 400 per cent. and illegal lenders can offer APRs in excess of 1,000 per cent.
	I welcome the announcement that the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform has projects in all parts of the UK devoted to tackling illegal lending and that it will maintain them until 2011. However, I should be grateful if the Economic Secretary commented on the working of the Consumer Credit Act 2006, which introduced the unfair credit relationships test. It allows consumers to challenge the terms of credit agreements in court. I am also interested in whether the wide licensing and injunctive powers granted to the Office of Fair Trading to address bad practices by lenders under section 38 have been effective in practice. Why is the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform conducting a further review of consumer protection, to report in spring 2008, given that the 2006 Act is not yet fully in force?
	I am pleased that the Government aim to double the capacity of third sector lending and have provided £38 million from the financial inclusion fund. However, will the Economic Secretary confirm that the £38 million is new money? When the Select Committee examined this issue, I believe that £36 million had already been committed. If so, an extra £2 million does not seem that significant.
	To conclude, I want to revert to the availability of financial education, without which access to credit and savings products will founder. I welcome the commitment of £76 million for providing free face-to-face financial advice to financially excluded people. However, that targeted investment should be the cherry on the top of an integrated strategy, which puts financial literacy at the heart of schools and colleges and ensures that the iPod generation will become the ISA, not the IVA—individual voluntary arrangement—generation.

David Anderson: The debate is about low-income families and their access to financial services. I want to focus on the impact of companies that force people to look for financial services when they may not need to do that, and especially on a recent report by Energywatch about the impact of prepayment meters.
	I have a lot of experience of dealing with low-income families. I was a trade union representative for local government workers, school meals workers, cleaners—women who made around £80 for a 20-hour week. They did not want a bank account—they had never had one—and were frightened of the impact of having one. That is borne out by a National Consumer Council report of a couple of years ago, which clearly stated:
	"Low income consumers with bank accounts have higher levels of borrowing than those without access to bank accounts."
	People do not want to be sucked into a situation in which they may find it easier to access money.
	Some people also distrust direct debit accounts because they read the horror stories of people being hit with bills that bear no relation to their consumption and the problems of trying to rectify that. While they try to rectify that, they get into a bigger hole.
	From information that Energywatch has provided, it is clear that at least one in 11 energy consumers do not have access to a bank account. That means that they have to resort to other methods, including the use of prepayment meters. Energywatch reported last week that prepayment meters cost people £195 more for the same amount of energy than direct debit. The worst case about which Energywatch reported was that of npower, to which some people pay £304 a year—at least a third more than those paying by direct debit for exactly the same amount of energy. That is disgraceful. The average is £195.
	Last week, a pensioner on a prepayment meter will have received a heating allowance of £200. They can immediately throw £195 away, because they will get only £5-worth of energy out of that £200. It is clear that there is a detrimental impact on people who have prepayment meters. They are subsidising people like me, others in this Chamber and lots of other people around the country who are on direct debit and who can switch their bank accounts and energy accounts, thereby saving even more money—at least £150 a year on average, as shown in a report published today. Lack of access to such services leaves people worse off.
	People with prepayment meters are also—that ugly word—self-disconnecting. In the past, if people did not pay their electricity, gas or water bill, a guy would come along and cut them off, and there was a huge cry. That does not happen now; people do it themselves. So they are not only in poverty but not keeping warm and not keeping fed, and therefore in danger of becoming ill.
	Approaches have been made to the Energy Retail Association—the trade association of energy suppliers—which has said that it would not want an equalisation of rates between prepayment meters and direct debits.  [ Interruption. ] Sorry, I am off message. I understand the Energy Retail Association's point of view, but that is clearly not fair on the people who are being made to suffer. The regulator, Ofcom, suggests that the cost to the companies of prepayment meters is £85, which means that on average they are raking in £110 from poor people, for what we do not know. Surely that cannot be fair.
	To illustrate how big the issue really is, Energywatch estimates that at least £300 million a year is spent by prepayment customers without power, and that the figure could be as much as £500 million. Last year alone, more than 366,000 prepayment meters were installed in houses for people who were in debt. They did not want prepayment meters, but they were told that the only way they could continue to access energy was by having a prepayment meter. Again, that impacts on their ability to make ends meet and it is another reason why they will suffer from financial exclusion.
	It is clear that we need to do something other than just talk about the issue. What could be done? Companies could show some real corporate social responsibility and say that it is unfair that the poor are subsidising the rich. Instead of the consumer taking the hammer, they could let the shareholder pick up some of the £300 million or £500 million. They could also do what used to be done when they were nationalised—they could spread the cost of the service charge equally across every consumer, so that the one in 11 who have a prepayment meter no longer subsidise the other 10 and share the cost. If that does not work or if the companies do not agree, perhaps we in the House need to sit down and legislate, and make it so that people who are in poverty no longer subsidise people who do not need it.
	That is not the only situation where such issues arise. On behalf of one of my constituents I have previously raised in the House the situation whereby British Telecom charges people who will not go on to direct debit. As a result of that complaint, Ofcom has instituted a review of telephone charges, which has shown that some companies do not charge anything for non-direct debit payments, whereas others charge as much as £25 a quarter. That is absolutely disgraceful. Again, people who do not have access to bank accounts are being made to subsidise people who are well-off.
	Last week in business questions I raised the issue of Energywatch. The Leader of the House said that she thought that it was a good subject on which to have a topical debate. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) said that he did not agree, but I am glad that the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) agrees that it is a good topic to debate. The truth is that when we in the House do not think that it is topical to talk about alleviating poverty, we should all give up and go home.

Tobias Ellwood: It is a pleasure to participate in this important topical debate. The priority of any Government is the stewardship of the economy. A test of the social responsibility of any Government is how they support the most vulnerable, the socially isolated and those excluded.
	It is worth paying tribute to some of the initiatives that the Government have introduced since they came to power in 1997. They started off with the social exclusion unit, which was a drive to increase the use of bank accounts. As we heard from the Economic Secretary, there was also the Government's child poverty review in 2004, which was followed by the Treasury's strategy paper, "Promoting financial inclusion". In 2006, the Treasury Committee published three reports, which my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) covered in some detail. There was also the 2007 paper, "Financial inclusion", in which the Economic Secretary spelled out where money would go from 2008 to 2011. I make particular reference to the £76 million allocated for face-to-face advice for people on low incomes, which is so important in allowing people to understand what they should do with their money and what decisions they should make for the future. The question is whether that is enough. Could more be done? The fact that 35 per cent. of those receiving income support are also financially excluded shows that a lot more can indeed be done.
	One thing that will link all right hon. and hon. Members present is the fact that every time we hold a surgery we are confronted by horrendous cases of financial destitution and other financial problems in which we are asked to get involved. One big example, I am afraid, is the tax credits system. In her short winding-up speech, perhaps the Economic Secretary can comment on what is being done about those who are hugely overpaid or hugely underpaid in every constituency throughout the country, which does not help the financial management of those vulnerable people.
	One recent change that we face is due to IT. There has been a drive to save money through the use of computers and the increased push towards bank accounts. Unfortunately, one could argue that the pace of change has been too fast for a generation that has not harnessed IT in the same way that the younger generation in particular has. There is too much reliance on bank accounts, in the sense that people are no longer considered as humans but as numbers. Unless there is a support mechanism to look after those who do not have access to IT or who cannot understand it, one chunk of society will always be left out.
	That is reflected in the fact that financial services are now treated as a mass market. People have become lost and are no longer treated as individuals, but as numbers. Access is therefore far from equal. Around 1.5 million households in Britain lack any financial service products at all. A further 4.4 million households are on the margins of financial services, usually with nothing more than a bank account; and yet the financial advice that one receives when signing up for a bank account is very limited indeed. One has to pay for that extra advice if one wants any more detail about how to use one's money wisely.
	Some 60 per cent. of low-income families have no savings whatever. People who have no savings will therefore receive no advice; nor will they have any inclination to look at products such as home contents insurance, pensions or anything else. That is the area that the Government need to spend more time considering. My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) talked about the global credit squeeze, which affects all of us, particularly the vulnerable and those who want to start making mortgage payments.
	One could argue that financial inclusion means a lack of access to a range of financial services. Financially excluded people typically exhibit such characteristics as not even having a bank account or relying on forms of credit from lenders, pawn brokers and loan sharks, as we have heard. That takes people down the wrong route entirely. The consequence is that they pay more to manage their money than those of us who can afford to have a bank account and access such facilities. People without bank accounts also find it tougher to plan for the future and are even more likely to get further into debt because of that.
	We have heard some examples of that. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson), who talked about prepayment meters, which is a great example of how those on lower incomes pay more. Those who have to pay by a written cheque, for example, have to pay more than those who pay by credit or debit card. Those without bank accounts who want to have a mobile phone contract end up paying more as well. The very people who have less money end up paying more. That results in a vicious cycle, and they end up getting further and further into debt.
	We need to focus on education in this regard, and I would like to know what emphasis schools are placing on encouraging people to get a bank account and on providing them with an understanding of financial services and money management, so that they do not get into debt in the first place. People need to be aware of what they can do with even a limited amount of money. They need to put in place good habits for the future. If that does not happen, they will end up with increasing financial difficulties, and they will pay far more for any advice that they need. Among the social consequences are unemployment, relationship breakdown and health problems. Early intervention is therefore crucial.
	Progress has certainly been made, but much more needs to be done. In particular, access to advice needs to be expanded, and not only in schools. More investment is also needed, beyond the £76 million that the Economic Secretary mentioned. We need to see an improvement in the savings culture, and we must encourage better discipline in lending. We should toughen our stance on those who exploit the vulnerable by trying to get money out of people who have no money to give in the first place. Tackling personal debt and financial exclusion is an issue of social responsibility. It is the responsibility not only of the third sector and business, and of the individual, but, most importantly, of the Government.

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The Bill was given considerable scrutiny in Committee and there were some consistent themes to it. The Government consistently referred to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill as the template, exemplar and the precedent for the Crossrail Bill and for many of its powers. The Minister told us frequently that the exceptional powers granted to the Government and the Secretary of State in this Bill were in many cases identical to those contained in that Bill.
	We accept that many of the exceptional powers are necessary, but we also believe that many of them require and will continue to require scrutiny. We tabled a number of amendments designed to define those powers, to ensure accountability in respect of them and to ensure proper consultation over their use. They were heard many times in Committee already, but I suspect that we will hear the words "relevant and appropriate bodies" many times again this afternoon. We also sought to ensure that compensation was available and payable to those prejudiced by the extraordinary powers being granted in the Bill, particularly with regard to compulsory purchase orders, to which I will return later.

Stephen Hammond: The short answer is that that is my understanding of the Government's position, but I am not at all confident that it would not be subject to legal tests. Indeed, the possibility of providing legal advice has already been mentioned, which suggests that that may not be the case. It could be that any extension to the route would require that portion of it to go back into hybrid Bill mode so that petitioners in that area would be afforded exactly the same rights as those who were heard by a Select Committee in respect of the original route. I have to tell my right hon. Friend that it is far from clear that it will be possible to extend the route simply under the Transport and Works Act 1992, as it is likely to be subject to a great deal of legal scrutiny. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that issue; the Minister may wish to respond to it later.
	In Committee, we tabled some 75 amendments in order to ensure proper scrutiny. The Minister asked me to withdraw five on the basis that he wanted to reconsider the Government's position. He is bringing back one of them this afternoon in the form of Government amendment No. 1, which we will certainly support. If he had been slightly more far-sighted and tabled other Government amendments in the same way, we could have supported them, too.
	Let me deal with new clause 1, which has been tabled very much in the spirit of what we said in Committee—that at this stage we would revisit only matters that were particularly important to us. Clause 66 provides that
	"any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of this Act"
	and
	"any increase attributable to this Act"
	to sums already provided for by previous enactments should be provided for by Parliament. That is all very straightforward and correct. As the Minister has said previously, the Government are subject to commercial confidentiality, but are keen to be transparent in providing details of the Crossrail funding package where they can. In that spirit, I want to thank that the Minister for the package and some of the briefings he gave to the Committee. That generosity was appreciated.
	However—there is always a "however"—although the Bill explains the moneys provided by Parliament, there are also other moneys provided by other bodies. Also, the Bill does not provide for an ongoing update to be delivered to Parliament on the subject of funding and costing. That is exactly what my new clause proposes to add to the Bill. Although I appreciate and accept the Minister's generosity of spirit in his disclosures so far, we as the Opposition—and who knows who may be in opposition when the Bill comes into force—need to ensure adequate and appropriate protection and scrutiny of the fundings and costings on which the Bill is built.
	My new clause thus makes four provisions. First, it provides that the Secretary of State must make details of the funding arrangements available to Parliament. Secondly, the Mayor of London, whoever that may be, will commit Londoners to high extra expenditure and potential liability, so the new clause makes the Mayor provide Londoners with a statement of the financial consequences of his funding decisions. Thirdly, it provides that the Secretary of State shall, after consultation, provide an annual statement of costs and liability. Finally, it provides that the Secretary of State shall provide an annual statement of the destination of funds raised as a result of the sale of surplus land and property.
	There is clearly a justification for all that, and it is very simple. It follows a line of reasoning that has been consistent in all our amendments. It will allow the various elements of the funding package to be scrutinised continually throughout the Bill's stages; it will allow the scrutiny to begin before the start and at the conclusion of that process; it will allow Members to give appropriate consideration to the risk to the package; it will allow scrutiny of the financial probity of the providers; and it will allow the House to assess the likelihood of financial projections being met.
	Throughout the Bill's stages we have said that we support the principle, subject to our ability to scrutinise the funding. We continue to support Crossrail in principle. There is a funding package in place, but we need to see its design, its extent and its underwriters.

Peter Lilley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would be grateful if you could let me know whether there is any way in which the House can register its collective shame that a Government elected on a clear promise to grant the people a referendum on the European treaty are currently signing that treaty, albeit in a skulking, hole-in-the-corner fashion, in Brussels. Is there any way in which the House can register the fact that we disapprove totally of what is happening?

Stephen Hammond: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that many of my hon. Friends felt that you had a way of being able to see that their points of order were taken up, rather than us having to discuss the clauses and amendments before us. Nevertheless, the two amendments are important. The first part of the Bill deals with the scheduled works required to bring Crossrail into being. The second part concerns the land on which the works will be built, and the powers that the Secretary of State requires to take temporary, or even permanent, ownership of such land, or to modify the rights of way over it. The third part deals with the planning issues that might arise as a result of those scheduled works.
	All of those measures are vital to the successful construction of Crossrail, and we discussed them at length in Committee, where I tabled a number of amendments which I believe would have enriched the Bill. I was disappointed that the Minister did not agree with me. I should like to revisit two issues using a slightly different approach to that which we took in Committee. First, amendment No. 2 relates to easements over land. We tabled a probing amendment in Committee, but the questions that we posed remain unanswered. Will the Minister give the House a reassurance about the power to acquire easements or other rights, as set out in clause 7? Does the Secretary of State or nominated undertaker require the power to access sites? The easement that is required will concern merely a small strip of land; would not the acquisition of an easement or a right be less costly, and easier to arrange? Does the Minister envisage that many such easements will be required, and does he expect that they will be required temporarily or permanently? Those questions have not been answered, and they are important.
	I accept that easements over land will be required in certain circumstances, and I certainly accept that in some circumstances an easement might be more desirable than an outright compulsory purchase. However, the issue that my amendment addresses is the length of time for which such an easement will be required. There are two ways in which a Secretary of State can gain access to land that is needed to build Crossrail: they can take possession of it by means of compulsory purchase, or they can acquire an easement over the land, which will give them a limited right to make use of the land as a right of way.
	On the first option—compulsory purchase—the Minister has given clear reassurances about the time limits involved. The land will be used for the construction and operation of Crossrail; if it is required only for the building of Crossrail, the surplus land would be disposed of, as we have discussed. The land disposal policy measures say that any land acquired for the purposes of Crossrail that is no longer required should be sold. That is all very clear. What remains unclear is the situation as regards the second option available to the Secretary of State, namely the acquisition of an easement. As I say, an easement is likely to concern a small strip of land, on the basis that it will be needed for access to land that is required to build the project. The land disposal policy does not appear to give any indication of the Government's intent on terminating easements once they are no longer required.

Tom Harris: The clause in question is not for when something goes wrong; it is there to be flexible enough to accommodate unforeseen circumstances. At this moment it is not possible to make a list of all temporary and permanent easements and the uses to which they would be put. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand why I do not want to speculate about any hypothetical effect of the Planning Bill.
	Given the examples that I have just cited and my explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Wimbledon, being a sensible and reasonable chap, will agree to withdraw amendment No. 2.
	I turn to amendment No. 3. Clause 10 deems planning permission to be granted for two different categories of works. First, the scheduled works listed in schedule 1 have to be built within their respective limits of deviation. Secondly, as long as other non-scheduled works fall within the scope of the various environmental assessments accompanying the Bill, they can be built anywhere within the limit of deviation or the limit of land to be acquired or used. In addition, safeguarding work to buildings necessary or expedient in connection with the works can be carried out outside these limits, but within a specified distance of the works in relation to which the protection is provided—50 m where the work relates to an underground railway and 35 m in other circumstances.
	The geographical extent of the works and the planning permission granted by the Bill is therefore well known and transparent. For example, the main railway and running tunnels are scheduled works, as are all the new stations to be built in the central section. Planning permission for those works is therefore granted within their limits of deviation. However, some works are not scheduled works and so get planning permission only if they have been environmentally assessed. These include ancillary works such as station alterations and electrification works on the existing national rail networks within the limits of land to be acquired or used, and protective works to buildings outside those limits. I am therefore satisfied that the scope of the deemed planning permission is limited to the works that are reasonably required to enable Crossrail to be built.
	Furthermore, all works are subject to the detailed consent regime set out in schedule 7, and stakeholders will have had the opportunity to consider detailed information about the likely environmental impacts of all the works for which deemed planning permission is proposed to be granted, and if necessary to petition. The hon. Gentleman's amendment would require separate planning permission to be sought for any works authorised by the Bill that are not scheduled works and fall outside the limits of deviation of the works. That would, as I have indicated, affect a wide category of works, including unscheduled works that lie within the limits of the Bill. The effect of requiring separate planning permission to be sought for such works would be to undermine the very purpose of the Bill—that is, to obtain deemed planning permission for the works reasonably required to enable Crossrail to be built, where they have had appropriate environmental assessment. It would expose the project to the risk of severe delays as local authorities considered applications for these works under the 1990 Act regime, including possibly the holding of public inquiries.
	On the basis of that explanation, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment. If for no other reason, I hope that he accepts that undue delay to the schedule for the construction of Crossrail would result in added costs. If he is so concerned about added costs of the scheme and transparency in funding it, I hope that he will accept that his amendment would add nothing to the demands to keep the costs of Crossrail down.

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 15, line 2, after '(6)', insert
	', but no later than 9 months after the day on which the railway mentioned in section 1(1)(a) is first used by Crossrail passenger services,'.
	The clause and the amendment will be of particular concern to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby), who said in the previous debate that he was worried about periods of time, because they focus on the infamous "interim period", which, for the purposes of the Bill, is the time between the granting of Royal Assent and the date on which passenger services commence on Crossrail. During that period, the Office of Rail Regulation has an overriding duty to exercise its access contract functions in such a way as to facilitate the operation of Crossrail. I accept that principle, which, as the Minister pointed out in another context, has, like so much of the Bill, a precedent in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996.
	That was a fine Bill enacted by a fine Conservative Government, but the Minister will recognise that even legislation such as that can sometimes be improved upon. We do not necessarily have to take the example of that Act and look no further—and the amendment would look further. It would give some clarity and definition to the phrase "the interim period".
	Clause 23(7) gives the Secretary of State the power to extend the so-called interim period. In Committee, I expressed more than once the idea that the during the interim period, which takes place between the granting of Royal Assent and the day on which passenger services commence, the ORR has the overriding duty to ensure that the construction phase of Crossrail is prioritised. That is right, but should not that power be restricted? Should not the ORR have the overriding duty only during the construction phase? Is it really right that it has that overriding duty once services are up and running? I have tabled an amendment that would restrict the extension of that overriding requirement to nine months and restrict any duty beyond the interim period.
	When we discussed the matter previously, the Minister was concerned that a restriction of six months would be too short. He rejected an amendment to that effect on the grounds that passenger services will be phased in on Crossrail over a period of time. He suggested that even six months after the first service, a full service might not be operational. He repeated that view to Committee members in his letter of 6 December. On reflection, it is just about possible to suggest that. We may well see an example of that with the channel tunnel rail link and the services run on it out of the excellent new St. Pancras station. However, if we consider the possibility of phasing in services, can we really say that a Crossrail service will not have a full timetable in place nine months after operation? In the Minister's response to the Committee, he clearly implied that he does not believe that the interim period should extend for time immemorial. He hopes that it will not extend wildly beyond the time when passenger services are fully operational. As so often in this Bill, he wants the flexibility to determine when that may be. We see that that flexibility is reasonable.

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend is yet again being helpful and putting a point that I would wish to make; I am grateful to him for that.
	We accept that there has to be some flexibility, but as so often with the powers that the Minister and the Government seek under the Bill, it seems to me that such powers should not be open-ended, and that they should be restricted in certain cases. I am concerned that we are told time and again that the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act is a fitting precedent for Crossrail legislation. So I might have been tempted to accept that precedent if I had not had the good fortune to serve on the Committee that considered the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill. It includes several clauses, which, taken together, have the effect of undermining the argument both for the interim period and for restricting that interim period. That is extraordinarily inconsistent. Sometimes we are told that the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act is an extraordinary and helpful precedent, and at other times we disregard it. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill is clever and has the potential to turn the interim period into an indefinite period—but it is inappropriate to allow the interim period that we are considering to become indefinite.
	If we are to take the 1996 Act as a precedent for the Bill, we must assume that the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill will, when enacted, form some sort of precedent for any future Crossrail (Supplementary Provisions) Bill. We must therefore ensure that we will not be faced one day with the prospect of an indefinite extension to the interim period through the precedent of some future Act.
	I do not want an indefinite period during which the Office of Rail Regulation must prioritise Crossrail—or, indeed, High Speed 1. It is neither necessary nor desirable. The ORR is an excellent regulatory body, which should oversee all parts of the rail network. It should not have a legal obligation to favour one part of the network over another, because that might compromise its independence once the operational phase begins.
	I reiterate that we wholly support Crossrail. We understand that extraordinary powers will be required to build it. We appreciate that the Secretary of State needs flexibility but, once Crossrail has been constructed and the passenger services are operational, many of the extraordinary powers should become superfluous. Crossrail should fit in with the rest of the network.
	The amendment would grant the flexibility that the Secretary of State seeks, but restrict the extension of the interim period to nine months. I hope that that would allow for full phasing in of Crossrail passenger services and be sufficient to reach a stage whereby the construction period is complete and Crossrail no longer needs the regulator's special help. That is an important point, which the Minister acknowledged in Committee. I hope that he will acknowledge it now, especially given our discussions about the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill.
	I hope that the Minister can grant Conservative Members some joy in the festive season and accept our reasonable amendment.

Tom Harris: I am quite prepared to offer the hon. Member for Wimbledon a merry Christmas, but not before the successful Third Reading of the Bill. I hope that I can persuade him that his amendment is unnecessary, and perhaps even get him to admit that the wording is intentionally mischievous. It is during the interim period that the Office of Rail Regulation would have an overriding duty in the exercise of its access contract functions to facilitate the operation of the prospective principal Crossrail services.
	To deal briefly with the comments of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), it is sometimes frustrating that hon. Members in all parts of the House constantly demand that new rail lines be built, but only provided that there be no unforeseen consequences for adjacent rail lines. In the case of Crossrail, there will clearly be unwanted consequences for other rail services, because we are building a new railway. Given the level of investment that we expect the public and private sectors jointly to make to the project, it is unreasonable to tell prospective investors that we will not give overriding precedence to the requirement to build and operate Crossrail services. That is not a particularly easy message to get out, but it underpins the entire Bill. If we are going to have a Bill, with the necessary investment, we must guarantee 100 per cent. that the construction and services will operate completely unimpeded. That is the view of the Government; I hope that it will ultimately be the view of the Opposition, too.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The timing and content of written statements are entirely a matter for the Government. They are not something that the Chair can deal with. The comments that he has made are now on the record, and, no doubt, everybody will take note of them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 1

Stephen Hammond: The Chairman of the Select Committee uses the right word.
	Closing submissions to the Select Committee were made in July 2007, and to enable it to continue its work we had two carry-over motions on the Floor of the House. The Bill then wound it way through to the Public Bill Committee, where, as the Minister said, we had four good-humoured sittings. None the less, proper scrutiny was carried out. To ensure that, Her Majesty's Opposition tabled some 70 amendments and two new clauses. It is a source of considerable pride to Her Majesty's Opposition that the Minister found that he could support, if in a slightly differently worded way, at least one of our amendments, which found its way on to today's amendment paper. The Bill will now proceed to the other place and go through the same stages, although I am sure that Members there will be pleased to hear that it will not, as I understand it, be subject to a Select Committee procedure as lengthy as it was in this House. Nevertheless, today represents a significant step forward in Crossrail's development.

Nick Raynsford: I shall be brief, but I do not want the moment to pass without congratulating my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport on his success in bringing this important, long and complex Bill to the point at which it should receive a Third Reading today and then pass on to the other place and complete its parliamentary passage.
	The Bill is important and should bring substantial benefits to London. Without it, London's economic growth—and, indeed, its transport policy—would face serious questions. Without Crossrail, the outlook for London's transport in 20 years would be much more challenging, with serious transport and environmental consequences. When we consider environmental issues, we should be aware that without Crossrail, London's future could be bleak, with serious traffic congestion and the consequent environmental degradation. We should be conscious of that wider environmental context when considering the short-term adverse impacts during the construction phase.
	I am conscious of that in my constituency, especially in Woolwich, which has probably suffered more than most London boroughs in the past 20 to 30 years from economic decline and deindustrialisation. The result has been relatively high poverty and deprivation and a need for new investment. It is noticeable that the works currently taking place to bring the docklands light railway into Woolwich have provoked few complaints or criticisms. I have received only a small number, despite the huge disruption that that major engineering work is causing the area. The reason is simple: the work is bringing enormous benefits to a deprived area, which will benefit from communication across the Thames through the docklands light railway to London City airport and beyond. That will be a helpful economic driver.
	By contrast, Crossrail will be an enormous benefit because the fast connection to Canary Wharf, central London and through to Heathrow will make possible investment that was previously thought impossible in Woolwich. That is why there was such enormous feeling in Woolwich across all sections of the community—the business community, the local population and all others, including our neighbours in surrounding areas—about the importance of the Crossrail station, which was one of the great achievements of the Select Committee. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and his colleagues on the Committee on recognising the importance of the Crossrail station at Woolwich and insisting that it be incorporated in the Bill.
	I pay tribute, too, to my hon. Friend the Minister on the Government's acceptance of the case and on their recognition that, through an innovative funding regime involving a private sector contribution to the station at Woolwich, it was possible to amend the Bill in a way compatible with the economic objective of delivering the entire Crossrail project cost-effectively. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) has referred to the innovative financing of the scheme and to the contribution that it will make to the Thames Gateway. We should all be pleased about what has been achieved on the financing, which will help to ensure the greater success of the Crossrail project and its contribution to the Thames Gateway in general, and to Woolwich in particular.

Theresa May: First, may I pay tribute and give thanks to all hon. Members who served on the Committees for this Bill, particularly those who undertook what the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) described as the "penal servitude" of the hybrid Bill Committee. Their careful attention to the issues raised by petitioners from my constituency, of whom I was one, led to improvements to the Bill for my constituency, particularly for residents living close to Guards Club park. They have also brought about improvements in relation to works around Maidenhead station and they have reduced the impact—sadly, there will still be an impact—on Brunel's famous Maidenhead railway bridge, which was so wonderfully captured by J. M. W. Turner.
	I want to raise three points about the Bill, the first of which is about the hybrid Bill Committee. As the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) made clear, the hybrid Bill Committee was not allowed to consider the extension of the route. I believe that that directly contravened undertakings given in this Chamber by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was the then Transport Secretary. I am concerned that the Committee was not able to consider the extension of the route, because the overall route is an important aspect of Crossrail.
	That brings me to my second point. Many hon. Members have referred to the economic benefit of Crossrail. Crossrail will have a great economic benefit, but we will miss out on even more economic benefit if it is not extended to Reading in the west. If one looks at this in a strategic transport sense, it makes sense to extend the line to a transport hub, which Reading clearly is. I know that that view is shared by the two Members of Parliament who represent Reading, and it is certainly shared by Wokingham borough council, Reading borough council and the Thames Valley economic partnership, which represents large-scale businesses in the Thames Valley area. The Government are missing out on something, because the scheme could be even better if it were extended to Reading.
	My third point is about the potential impact of Crossrail on services on the First Great Western line, to which I referred on Report. The Minister knows my concern that if Crossrail comes and the First Great Western service is not continued as it is today, my constituents in Maidenhead could find themselves not as the recipients of a fast service and semi-fast services into Paddington, as they are today, but simply on the end of a metro service. The time taken to get to Paddington from Maidenhead would thus double from 20 minutes to 40 minutes. Crossrail could benefit my constituents in Maidenhead enormously if they could board a fast service to Paddington and stay on across London to Canary Wharf and elsewhere.
	Sadly, that benefit will not be provided as the services are envisaged. My concern is that unless the Government are willing to accept, when the time comes, that the service specification for the franchise for First Great Western should not be reduced, given that Crossrail will serve Maidenhead, my constituents will find this of disbenefit, rather than of benefit. That would be even more the case for my constituents in Twyford, which is between Maidenhead and Reading, because if the Crossrail line does not extend from Maidenhead to Reading, they would find themselves with a significantly reduced service and really lose out as a result of Crossrail. Crossrail could be so much more of a benefit to the UK, to the south-east and to my constituents if the Government examined carefully the service provision on First Great Western when Crossrail comes and looked at the issue of extending to Reading.

Clive Efford: The arguments on Crossrail have been well rehearsed in several previous debates, so I shall be brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and all the members of the Committee on the way in which they went about their business. There was a strong argument from people in south-east London, ably led by my neighbour and right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), in favour of the station at Woolwich, making that town centre a major hub for the wider south-east London area around Greenwich and Bexley.
	The Select Committee demonstrated the House at its best by listening to the arguments not only from hon. Members but from others who made representations on behalf of that station. They forced the Government to think again and were successful in achieving the inclusion of a Crossrail station at Woolwich in the scheme. That is very welcome.
	I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the way in which he has conducted himself throughout the discussions, because he has shown a willingness to listen and an ability to articulate the difficult position that the Government were in on occasion. We have a satisfactory conclusion at the end of the day.
	Crossrail is essential for the status of London as a world city. It will contribute 40 per cent. of the necessary increase in transport capacity that London needs if it is to continue to grow and contribute to the British economy. For those who are concerned by so much investment going into London, it is important to remember that London is a net exporter of money to the greater economy of the UK. In the Mayor's submission to the spending review in 2004—"The Case for London"—he highlighted the fact that London exports more than £9 billion to other areas of the UK when public expenditure is calculated against taxes paid. The Corporation of London commissioned Oxford Economic Forecasting to put the case for London, and it highlighted the fact that the capital city imports £110 billion-worth of goods and services from other parts of the country, making London a net importer of resources, a world-class city and the driving force in the UK economy. London also has a catalytic effect on tourism, and financial and business services that benefit the wider country.
	The case has been well made for Crossrail. It is essential not only for London, but for the UK's wider economy, and the Government and the Select Committee have done an excellent job on behalf of us all. I hope that the Bill gets a fair wind in the other place and we see Crossrail constructed on time and to budget . As my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) said, I hope that my constituents will be able to catch a train at Woolwich and go all the way to Heathrow, non-stop. That will be very welcome for people from south-east London and we all look forward to that day.

Alan Meale: In the few minutes that remain, it would be remiss of me, as Chairman of the Select Committee, if I did not pay due tribute to the staff of the House who worked alongside us. The Clerks worked diligently on the Bill. I also pay particular thanks to the Chairman of the Catering Committee—a very important and powerful person—because he helped the Committee by making staff available to provide refreshments to members of the Committee, and also the promoters and petitioners on the Bill. The staff provided an opportunity to obtain refreshments through the months and years that the Committee sat. We are grateful to the cleaners, the Clerks, the police and the security staff, who all allowed us to do our job.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Petition
	 — 
	Post Office Closures (New Forest)

Paul Rowen: The family was due to return to the UK on 26 April, having confirmed return airline tickets. Just before the return flight, Asma's father claimed that he was not well, and the visit was extended by 15 days, by agreement. Her husband then tried to extend the visit further. Asma refused, as she wanted to get the three oldest children back to school. She was also studying for an Open university degree, which she was due to complete this summer.
	Asma then asked her husband to return her passport and her children's so that she could return to the UK. He refused, saying that neither she nor the children would be allowed to return to the UK. Asma then escaped from her brother-in-law's house in Rawalpindi, where she was being held, and sought the assistance of the British high commission in Islamabad.
	The high commission organised a meeting between the two parties at the high commission on 22 May. At the meeting, Zahoor agreed that the whole family would return to the UK to settle the question of the children's custody. Flights were booked for 26 May and, in the meantime, Asma and the children were to stay at a women's hostel.
	Before the meeting at the high commission, Zahoor was asked to bring the passports to the high commission. He did not do so. He said he would bring them to the high commission on Friday 25 May. He did not do that either, and nor did he answer calls from high commission staff. On Tuesday 25 May, the high commission found out that Zahoor had applied for court orders preventing his wife from taking the children out of Pakistan. Asma's mother Nasreen then approached me and asked for my assistance.
	Having got confirmation from the high commission about what had happened, I advised Asma to return to the UK to commence court proceedings here. That is what she did, with her mother flying to Pakistan to help look after the children. On 9 July, a court order was granted by Mrs. Justice Hogg that made the children wards of court. It stated that
	"said wards be brought to the jurisdiction of England and Wales no later than 27th July",
	and it also invoked
	"the Protocol made on 17th January 2003...so that all judicial, administrative and law enforcement authorities of...Pakistan help in locating, safeguarding and facilitating the return to England and Wales"
	of the children.
	The court order was conveyed to the judge in Pakistan by Asma's solicitors. Further court orders were laid before the High Court on 27 and 30 July, 14, 20 and 26 August, 14 September, 11 October and 14 November. However, none of them received a response from the husband.
	Since then, Asma has been forced to remain in Pakistan because she is not prepared to abandon the children. Despite numerous requests, the High Court in Pakistan has refused to respond to the invocation of the protocol, regarding it as a non-binding "memorandum of understanding". Although the courts in Pakistan have granted Asma custody, and even though Zahoor has to pay maintenance there, they have refused to lift the exit control orders.
	Asma is a young woman in a foreign country, with no available family support. I have had experience of dealing with many families of Pakistani origin, and I know that that is highly unusual. She is very much on her own. Zahoor and his family have made death threats against her, as the following extract from a letter to the British high commissioner, dated 24 August, shows.
	She said:
	"I am a woman fighting for the right of my children without any financial or emotional support...I am deeply concerned for the psychological trauma that has been inflicted upon my children...I have received numerous threats from my husband and his family. I have been told I will not leave Pakistan alive and that he will take my children from me."
	She is very much a woman alone.
	I make no criticism of the support provided by the high commission. Asma was helped to get a place at the hospital and to find a solicitor. I realise that the commission deals with many similar cases and the staff are overworked; nevertheless Asma and her children have been stranded in Pakistan for seven months.
	What can the Minister and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office do? The High Court order of 30 July is particularly important in that context. It requests:
	"The UK Passport Agency and the Consulate in Islamabad do communicate in order to reissue passports for the wards...for the purpose of their re-entry into England and Wales."
	The UK Passport Service has not responded to the substance of the order made by Mr. Justice Moylan. However, yesterday I met Mr. Justice Ryder, who today issued an order asking the service to respond to that request.
	Since August, I have been asking the high commission to issue new passports. Once that has been done, Asma will have a powerful bargaining tool to challenge the exit control orders. I have discussed the case with the Pakistan high commissioner and deputy high commissioner. In an e-mail to me of 7 November, the deputy high commissioner confirmed:
	"Their current British passports are with their father who refuses to give them back. Can you kindly press the High Commission in Islamabad to issue passports."
	The Minister will be aware of the strained relations between the courts and Government of Pakistan. It is clear to me that the Pakistan Government can be persuaded to allow Asma and the children to return to the UK. If the Minister agrees to issue the passports, it will put pressure on the Pakistan High Court to respond to the protocol, and send a clear signal that the UK Government are backing Asma in her fight to get her children back to the UK. If the Minister is prepared to do that, I will travel to Pakistan to negotiate their safe return. Can he think of a better Christmas or Eid present for Asma and her family?
	For the long term, the Government should begin talks with the Pakistan Government, as envisaged by article 7 of the protocol. Agreed administrative machinery could remove the frustrations and distress caused by the delaying tactics used in this case. The protocol was an important first step forward by the courts—an imaginative response from Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss. We need the Government to put some teeth into the protocol, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Kim Howells: I thank the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) for securing a debate on the UK-Pakistan protocol on children's matters, and in particular on the case of Asma Akhtar. We are very much aware of Mrs Akhtar's circumstances and I welcome the opportunity to set out clearly the position of Her Majesty's Government in relation to that case. I thank the hon. Gentleman for so clearly setting out the difficulty and complexity of the case.
	As the hon. Gentleman told us, international parental child abduction is not a new issue, nor, unfortunately, is it uncommon. As more people live and work overseas, so there will be more families with parents from different countries. Sometimes relationships break down and decisions have to be taken over where a child will live. In some cases, parents cannot agree and one parent decides to move the child to another country without the permission of the other. In this case, there are four children, and the circumstances are pretty exceptional.
	Where parents cannot agree, and cannot reach a mediated solution, custody is a matter for the courts. However, it is a serious and distressing issue, particularly when there is an international dimension. We cannot interfere, or take sides, but the Government are committed to helping where we can. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has spoken about the matter with Mr. Justice Ryder of the family division of the High Court. It is important that the hon. Gentleman gets guidance from Mr. Justice Ryder.
	To provide a focal point for our work, in 2003 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office set up a dedicated child abduction section within the consular directorate. The section provides advice and support to parents affected by child abduction. For many years, countries have looked for ways to resolve disputes in the best interests of the children. The 1980 Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction is an international convention under which legal procedures are agreed between a number of countries, including the United Kingdom, to assist in the return of a child who has been abducted.
	The hon. Gentleman did not have time to remind us, but The Hague convention does not work for all countries. For example, there are aspects of Islamic or sharia law, as practised in some countries, that can conflict with the principles of the convention. The convention argues that the country of habitual residence should be the deciding factor in determining where custody issues should be resolved. As he reminded us, the children are British. They were taken to Pakistan on holiday and they and their mother now find themselves more or less incarcerated in the country. Sharia law does not always support the notions enshrined in The Hague convention and so in many countries it can be very difficult for parents to have their children returned to their normal place of residence.
	Pakistan is such a country. It is also the country to which most abducted British children are taken by a parent—accounting for almost a fifth of our total case records. The United Kingdom-Pakistan protocol, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, was signed in 2003 following an initiative by Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, who was then president of the family division of the royal courts of justice, and senior judges. The aim was to provide a mechanism for communication between judiciaries to handle better child abduction cases between our two countries.
	The judicial initiative reflected the fact that although Pakistan, a country practising Islamic sharia family law, was unlikely in the near future to sign The Hague convention of 1980 on international child abduction, our countries shared many legal principles. They shared a desire to see child abduction cases handled in the best interests of the children. The protocol is a judicial consensus and, as the hon. Gentleman said, is not legally binding. However, in legal systems that draw heavily on precedent, it was clear that further establishing the principle of habitual residence as a strong assumption in child abduction cases would be very helpful. Judicial co-operation on this level is also important in trying to foster international co-operation between judiciaries.
	The protocol aims to secure the return of abducted children to the country where they normally live, without regard to the nationality, culture or religion of the parents, so that matters of custody and access can be resolved by the courts there. The protocol, which Her Majesty's Government fully support, has made a difference. According to the most recent records, 84 cases have been handled under the protocol. Of these, a total of 49 involved actual abduction or wrongful retention of a child by a parent. Some 22 cases resulted in returns from Pakistan to the United Kingdom.
	As well as offering the advice and support provided by the child abduction section in London, our consular staff based overseas are committed to supporting British nationals. That includes giving all the support that we properly can to those who have had their children abducted overseas, or are involved in custody disputes. We provide a list of overseas lawyers who speak English, conduct welfare checks on children—provided, of course, that the other parent agrees—offer travel information, and help with finding accommodation locally. Where appropriate, we contact the courts overseas to express our interest in a case and ask about progress. In exceptional circumstances we also attend court hearings. However, we can only operate within the confines of the law and cannot interfere in foreign court proceedings, just as other countries cannot interfere in our judicial system.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke about the case of Mrs. Akhtar and her four children, all of whom are in Pakistan. Our consular staff at the British high commission in Islamabad became aware of the case when Mrs. Akhtar's family in the UK contacted the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Consular staff have been in regular, frequent contact with Mrs. Akhtar since 1 May 2007 to offer and provide advice and assistance. That has included accompanying Mrs. Akhtar during a court hearing. Consular officials in London have also been in contact with Mrs. Akhtar's family in the United Kingdom.
	Mrs. Akhtar has asked us to issue new passports for her children, because her husband has effectively taken the passports away, and refuses to give them back to the children.  [Official Report, 7 January 2008, Vol. 470, c. 1MC.] We have not issued new passports because Mrs. Akhtar has started court proceedings in Pakistan under the protocol, seeking the return of the children to the United Kingdom. Under the terms of the protocol, we must await the outcome of the proceedings before issuing passports. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman told us, a lot of time has passed. The poor woman finds herself in dire straits, with her four children in Pakistan. It is important that decisions on travel are made by the appropriate courts of law and that we do not issue passports before a decision is taken; that is the normal situation. To do so could be seen as pre-empting court decisions, or assisting one parent to move the children before the courts have reached a decision on travel. Furthermore, a court order forbids the removal of the children from the jurisdiction of Pakistan without permission from the Pakistani court.
	We appreciate the family's frustration about the lack of progress in the case; the hon. Gentleman told us very clearly about that. I stress again that the British Government cannot interfere in the judicial systems of other countries, but I am not sure that that is what the hon. Gentleman is asking us to do; I think that he is asking us to do something rather different. We can and will express our concerns to the Pakistani judiciary at the highest levels at the lack of progress in the resolution of such cases, making reference to the undertaking signed by the judiciary in 2003.
	The British high commissioner in Islamabad is aware of the issues, and this week spoke to the protocol liaison judge, Justice Khokhar, a member of the Supreme Court. The high commissioner did not discuss individual cases, but expressed our concern that cases in Pakistan are not being resolved quickly in the best interests of the children. Justice Khokar promised to look into the matter with the district courts, and was concerned that cases were not being handled expeditiously.
	The protocol works in many cases, and we would much prefer to have it place than not, but there are cases where the protocol has not immediately been seen to help, and the case in question is just such a case. We have raised our concerns, but it remains a matter for the courts in Pakistan to decide. We hope that the conference that we plan to hold in Pakistan next year, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, will be a real opportunity to examine the functioning of the protocol and to look for practical improvements, but that is months away, and the hon. Gentleman clearly described the dilemma that faces Mrs. Akhtar and her family, who are in the UK, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
	We have discussed whether giving replacement passports or adequate travel documents for the children to Mrs. Akhtar would help in resolving the case more quickly. I understand that there have been discussions with the Pakistani deputy high commissioner and the hon. Gentleman. The deputy high commissioner confirmed that he had passed on to the hon. Gentleman advice that he had received from Mrs. Akhtar's lawyer, and that if the passports were handed on, it would not jeopardise the case and might even help it.
	The family court in Rawalpindi has awarded temporary custody of the children to Mrs. Akhtar. It stipulated that the children must not be taken out of the country without the permission of the court. We will be happy to give a letter to the mother, Mrs. Akhtar, saying that once the court gives permission for the children to leave Pakistan, we will issue the passports immediately.
	However, I know that the hon. Gentleman feels that there is another way of dealing with the matter. As we heard, he offered to travel to Pakistan if he believed that that would help and after he had discussed the matter with the various authorities, to try to move this distressing case forward. I want to ensure that he will have access to the appropriate officials so that the implications of his plan can be examined properly. I know that he feels that the welfare of Asma and her children count most. We share that view deeply. We will attempt to help the hon. Gentleman in whatever way we can. I am not giving him an undertaking that his plan can be agreed by the Foreign Office, but we will look at it closely and sympathetically.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Six o'clock.
	Correction
	 Official Report, 10 December 2007: In column 132, Division No. 25, insert, delete "Hill. rh Keith" in the Ayes.